I hate Bo.
I hate Bo.
Does anyone know what the slatted wing MOAC’s weigh? They look like good performers and I like the way they load.
https://sherpaaircraft.comWhat ever happened to the Sherpa project. I don't believe it ever got certified?
I've seen a Legend kit. It too comes with all the little do-dads marked and wrapped in individual packages. Very complete. I would have no hesitation ordering one of their kits.I would think the Cub Crafters kit is much more complete and thought out from all reports plus better instructions/builder support. The numbered little bags of hardware and step by step instructions from CC is pretty amazing.
Personally I'd take a light Carbon Cub over a nose heavy O-390 powered cub every day of the week.
I've seen a Legend kit. It too comes with all the little do-dads marked and wrapped in individual packages. Very complete. I would have no hesitation ordering one of their kits.
Stewart, yours is also a larger plane with an extended tail and all of the goodies to balance out a 390 on the nose. I would really call the Backcountry cubs the "MOAC". Now imagine taking your old PA-12 and strapping an IO-390 on the nose. Does that sound like a nice balanced sweet flying little plane still?
The Legend cub is a pretty small airframe in comparison with that big old 390 on the front. All I'm saying is there's a point of diminishing returns on a standard size cub airframe when you put that big engine on the front. The MOAC looks like just that, a company adding more of a good thing making for an imbalanced package.
And no, I haven't flown an IO-390 cub; only a 360 powered one. It's already a nose heavy plane. Can't imagine adding a constant speed, fuel injection, and a bigger block helps much.
A Cub is a Cub, take a look at this.I spoke with Darin @ Legend this past week and he reported that the kit does indeed come with all parts needed for assembly.
However, and this a big point, the kit ships with engineering drawings and not an assembly manual (e.g. CubCrafters).
For a first time builder such as myself, having step-by-step guidance would be reassuring.
A Cub is a Cub, take a look at this.
https://www.supercub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PA-18-Manual-Sept2009-v5.pdf
So little response to the MOAC. I’m surprised. That’s a very sexy Cub. I’m looking at a very similar Cub out my window. And the wheels are turning.
While one can pick apart someone else's manual for perhaps good reasons when building up an airplane, it is important that the builder have some decent mechanical abilities and be able to see through questionable written words. If not, then perhaps he should leave the actual building to someone else. Manuals such as these are meant to be guides. These are not Heathkits where every single action had a box to check when the operation was finished.Just a quick scan of the manual and its full of typos, incorrect call outs and hillbilly slang. One would think that when you spend this kind of $$ you would get a manual that doesn't look like a Chinese translation.
Figure 397 and the written description don't jive (tq called out)
Figure 458 and 459. Soldering aluminum tubing? The "Aluminum" tubing sure does have a funny copper color to it.
I am sure I could pick this one apart further but these just jumped out at me on a quick glance.